The housing reform in urban China since the 1990s and the ensuing spatial and social dynamics gave rise to new kinds of neighbourhoods with new logics of neighbouring and neighbourhood attachment. Meanwhile, neighbourhoods are actively promoted as platforms for policy implementation. Both are reasons to revisit the meaning of neighbourhood attachment in the Chinese context. This article focuses on the roles of neighbourly interaction and physical environment, juxtaposing postreform commodity housing estates against traditional neighbourhoods. The analysis draws on both qualitative and quantitative datasets from three case studies in Guangzhou and a city-wide survey. Results indicate that, compared with traditional neighbourhoods, residents of commodity housing estates have weak neighbourly interactions but strong neighbourhood attachment, which is based mainly on their satisfaction with the physical environment and less on their neighbourly contacts. Neighbourhoods in China have apparently shifted their function from social arenas to privatised living environments.
The Chinese government has made repeated attempts to end the so-called welfare provision of housing so as to reduce the burden on the state and the individual work units. Development companies have been set up to undertake housing construction and the housing units sold as commodities; these are referred to as`commodity housing'. The author conducts a comparative study of housing consumption in Beijing and Guangzhou, drawing upon two surveys of newly completed commodity housing conducted in 1996. In Beijing, which is dominated by the traditional socialist system of economic and social organisation, only a tiny portion of such housing is traded on the open market. In Guangzhou, where many of the market-oriented reform measures were first experimented with, the open market already accounts for a substantial proportion of the newly constructed stock. In both Beijing and Guangzhou, however, the work unit still constitutes the single most important buyer and distributor of commodity housing. Further, if the analysis is restricted to the subsidised sectors, which also include housing managed by the municipal housing bureau and resettlement housing, a comparison of the two samples reveals quite similar differential factors underlying housing consumption in the two cities, despite their difference in social and economic structure. The traditional redistributive system still exerts tremendous influence on housing consumption, even in cities renowned for their openness and market orientation. Certain differences in the results between the two cities are also revealed. For example, seniority is important only in Beijing, whereas professional and technical workers assume a special position only in Guangzhou. These differences point towards the importance of contextual considerations in the study of housing consumption in China.
Chinese cities are undergoing massive transformation. One after another, inner-city neighbourhoods of pre-1949 origin and work-unit compounds built in the socialist period are being torn apart, giving way to glossy office towers and luxurious condominiums. Millions of people have been uprooted and forced to be relocated. Mass media and research based on case studies generally convey a message of widespread grievance among the displaced residents. Based on a survey of 1200 households conducted in Shanghai in 2006, the present study provides a systematic account of the profiles of the displaced residents, juxtaposed against other resident groups of the city. The major conclusion is that, irrespective of all the criticisms concerning unregulated demolitions and forced evictions, the housing conditions of displaced residents are somewhat better than those of other Shanghai residents, both objectively and in terms of subjective evaluations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.